Slitherine

It's surely pointless having open and a theme, since all the theme armies would be allowable in the open.

May as well do pre and post 1073.

When you bring your army will you change it because it is in one theme or the other compared to in open? I wouldn't

philqw78 wrote:It's surely pointless having open and a theme, since all the theme armies would be allowable in the open.

May as well do pre and post 1073.

When you bring your army will you change it because it is in one theme or the other compared to in open? I wouldn't

Good shout. Is 1073 the correct date then?

Which of the 2 periods would be best as 5' tables? Both of them?

Is 1073 the correct date then?

Too early to say yet Tim but personally I think the date should be whatever it needs to be to push all of the Knights into Medieval. I think it may be 1040?

I agree with Pete, the arrival of knights seems a good way to define the start of the medieval period.

petedalby wrote:

Tim wrote: Is 1073 the correct date then?

Too early to say yet Steve

???????


as for the date
I thought it was as random as any other date we seem to choose

Small tables reduce the effectiveness of cavalry armies.

Just spotted this Phil - remind me which army won the small table Medieval period? But you make a good point - I didn't bring mounted because of the small table.

Personally I'd like to see one theme on 6 x 4 with the other on 60" x 40" - why not alternate them? And increase the 6 x 4 theme to 850 or 900 AP?

Mixing it up is the way to go - we really need to get away from 800AP on 6 x 4 tables as the default option please.

Personally I'd like to see one theme on 6 x 4 with the other on 60" x 40" - why not alternate them? And increase the 6 x 4 theme to 850 or 900 AP?

I played on the smaller tables both last year and this (switching periods). If we stick with two periods I'd vote for continuing to alternate which has the smaller table. It means each period is likely to have different armies in play in successive years, so greater variety.

I'd be a bit concerned that making the bigger table 900AP would effectively make it the same as a small table at 800AP. But as an option (without expressing a preference) we could have all tables 6'x4', and alternate periods having 900AP.

Having all the tables 6x4 is not really viable for the event if we are going to increase numbers again without ending up scattered across the whole building.

If I can get different sized trestle tables from the hire company the idea would be to fit some rows of 5 small-table games in, allowing us to increase the main room capacities by as much as 20 players.

I thought the 40" wide tables worked well in Medieval. And you could possibly squeeze them a bit further if you needed to? If you are going to alternate periods / table sizes, the Ancient period in 2014 may see lots of pikes, Romans & Off Sp but equally you may also see more flank marches attempted. Whatever you do Tim I'm sure it will be well supported given how successful this year was.

Hopefully you'll get lots of positive feedback when you ask for it outside of this forum too.

Please don't be influenced too much by what Martin is planning to do in Germany though. They are separate events after all.

Oh, for ?>@>@>@%$£%!!!! sake ...

BritCon 2014 has been struck admidships by the WBC boardgames week in Lancaster PA. The Worlds has already been hit by the science fiction Worldcon in London You wait a year fora major event, then four come along all at once.

Probably, I'll give BritCon a miss next year,

petedalby wrote:

Small tables reduce the effectiveness of cavalry armies.

Just spotted this Phil - remind me which army won the small table Medieval period? But you make a good point - I didn't bring mounted because of the small table.

I do hope that is rheorical. But Dave didn't have any Cavalry (Handley or the other one)

philqw78 wrote:

petedalby wrote:

Small tables reduce the effectiveness of cavalry armies.

Just spotted this Phil - remind me which army won the small table Medieval period? But you make a good point - I didn't bring mounted because of the small table.

I do hope that is rheorical. But Dave didn't have any Cavalry (Handley or the other one)

In this case I believe Pete is thinking that "cavalry" refers to men on horses...

In this case I believe Pete is thinking that "cavalry" refers to men on horses...

Thank you Dave

In that case they both had cavalry.

I had to beat off Dave Handley's light horse witha stick.

Rob

Robert241167 wrote:In that case they both had cavalry.

I had to beat off Dave Handley's light horse witha stick.

Rob

Perhaps if you'd concentrated a bit more on the foot it would have been more beneficial?